• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

That's funny, two of the most right wing, uninformed posters attacking each other.


It's like witnessing a member of the First Baptist Church scream obscenities to a member of the Second Baptist Church
 
Dragonfly said:
Look man, I'm simply asking for YOUR PERSONAL OPINION.

Get it?

Prostitution is illegal in most states. I believe it should be legal.
Recreational marijuana is illegal in most states. I believe it should be legal.
Cigarettes are legal, and I could easily be persuaded to support making them illegal.

See how that works? It's an opinion. A personal opinion.


I don't give a furry rat's behind what the "founding fathers" might have thought, or what the damned Government says or anything like that.

I want to know what YOU think.

So again, a simple yes or no answer is all I ask for.

Do you support SSM?
Click to expand...

This is my personal, political opinion: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Every time this issue should come up for a vote.
 
Rich2018 said:
Who says we are so burgeoned ?

Since morality is man made and man generated and not a finite well, man creates as much "morality" as he requires....which will vary between circumstances.

...Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government; if the Religious, want the secular and temporal, to take them morally seriously.
Click to expand...


The ten commandments are far from simple and they appear in the man made Bible - hardly from a god.
Would you observe Sharia law which is based on a man made holy book ?

Do you even know them and their meaning and consequences ?
Click to expand...

I understand the concept of economics. There are simply not enough morals to go around for free; that is why we have the Expense of Government in modern times; so, stop whining about Taxes.
 
Rich2018 said:
No it's not

SSM is a legal issue very much in the forefront of today's issues.


So do you support two people of the same gender (who aren't closely related) getting married ?
Click to expand...

Our federal doctrine is our supreme law of the land. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance and claim they are right.
 
danielpalos said:
This is my personal, political opinion: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Every time this issue should come up for a vote.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that you do not know how the Constitution functions. What is the process for your objection overruling a law or SCOTUS decision? What forms do you fill out?

When has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the Constitution functions in that way? When has the objection of a person or a religion ever resulted in overturning any law or Supreme Court decision?
 
danielpalos said:
I understand the concept of economics. There are simply not enough morals to go around for free; that is why we have the Expense of Government in modern times; so, stop whining about Taxes.
Click to expand...

I've seen better arguments in a bowl of Alpha-Bits. Put down the libertarian nonsense and pick up a textbook on Poli-Sci.
 
danielpalos said:
Stop appealing to ignorance. This is no form of deflection:

I fully subscribe to our federal doctrine.
Click to expand...

Where in the US Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision in your claim outlined? What constitutional interpretation ideal do you support?

The fact that you disagree with a SCOTUS decision is not a legally sufficient reason for you or your church to object to it because neither you or a church have any standing to object unless you can prove that your rights have been infringed by a decision in any rational form. The fact that you may disagree is not sufficient reason to object. The SSM marriage decision does not apply to your church because your church cannot be completed by the state to marry anyone, even if the couple in question are white heterosexual members.
 
Fledermaus said:
There is no argument to be made against word salad.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. You have to ask questions or cede the point and the argument with your next fallacy.

Our federal doctrine is our supreme law of the land. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance and claim they are right.

Any ad hominem will do.
 
danielpalos said:
You are wrong. You have to ask questions or cede the point and the argument with your next fallacy.

Our federal doctrine is our supreme law of the land. Only the right-wing appeals to ignorance and claim they are right.

Any ad hominem will do.
Click to expand...

The US Constitution worked as it was designed but not as you incorrectly understand it. I have never heard of anyone making such an ignorant claim as you did that the objection of one person or a church has the power to overturn a law or a judicial decision because of some moral outrage. It has been explained to you many times that the government cannot enforce moral without violating the religious clauses of the First Amendment due to the fact that there are as many ideas of what is moral as there are of who is or isn't a god and who that person interprets said the religious text.

Nobody is asking if you approve because your approval is not necessary for a decision to be constitutionally correct. You should write a letter to your congressman so they can laugh at your ignorance just as we are.
 
danielpalos said:
You are wrong. You have to ask questions or cede the point and the argument with your next fallacy.

Our federal doctrine is our supreme law of the land. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance and claim they are right.

Any ad hominem will do.
Click to expand...

An accurate description is not ad hominem,

You are throwing out words and phrases you don't really understand.
 
danielpalos said:
I understand the concept of economics. There are simply not enough morals to go around for free; that is why we have the Expense of Government in modern times; so, stop whining about Taxes.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned taxes ?


Please explain the term "Expense of Government" and how this relates to same sex marriage.
 
Rich2018 said:
Who mentioned taxes ?


Please explain the term "Expense of Government" and how this relates to same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm almost to the point that Sarah Palin is the person behind this account because Daniels's arguments are as equally illogical as her verbal diarrhea.
 
Lisa said:
It is obvious that you do not know how the Constitution functions. What is the process for your objection overruling a law or SCOTUS decision? What forms do you fill out?

When has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the Constitution functions in that way? When has the objection of a person or a religion ever resulted in overturning any law or Supreme Court decision?
Click to expand...

lol. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. are you really, American?
 
Lisa said:
Where in the US Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision in your claim outlined? What constitutional interpretation ideal do you support?

The fact that you disagree with a SCOTUS decision is not a legally sufficient reason for you or your church to object to it because neither you or a church have any standing to object unless you can prove that your rights have been infringed by a decision in any rational form. The fact that you may disagree is not sufficient reason to object. The SSM marriage decision does not apply to your church because your church cannot be completed by the state to marry anyone, even if the couple in question are white heterosexual members.
Click to expand...

Do you understand this concept or not?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our express supreme law of the land, in Any conflict of laws.
 
Lisa said:
The US Constitution worked as it was designed but not as you incorrectly understand it. I have never heard of anyone making such an ignorant claim as you did that the objection of one person or a church has the power to overturn a law or a judicial decision because of some moral outrage. It has been explained to you many times that the government cannot enforce moral without violating the religious clauses of the First Amendment due to the fact that there are as many ideas of what is moral as there are of who is or isn't a god and who that person interprets said the religious text.

Nobody is asking if you approve because your approval is not necessary for a decision to be constitutionally correct. You should write a letter to your congressman so they can laugh at your ignorance just as we are.
Click to expand...

lol. why should i take You all any more seriously than myself?
 
danielpalos said:
lol. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. are you really, American?
Click to expand...

Please explain how your idea works and when it worked as you claim it does?

Of course I am an American. Why do you ask?
 
danielpalos said:
don't understand the concept of morals, "right winger"?
Click to expand...

The government cannot enforce religious morals without violating the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom